The Solar centric system was described by Copernicus, who lived before Galileo was born, and no one bothered him about it.

What Galileo did that got the Vatican's attention, was he invented a machine that predicted the future. And not the palm reader kind of future, it predicted the market prices a day in advance.

Actually Copernicus's "On the Revolution of Celestial Spheres" published in 1543 was placed on the Index of Forbidden Books and he was excommunicated. And, quite frankly, I don't know where you acquired your information about Galileo. What was this "machine" that he invented, and where and when was it invented? And please explain why in 1633 he was charged with heresy by Inquisitor Maculani, his works banned, and he was placed under permanent house arrest by Pope Urban VIII? And why is there no mention of this machine in the transcript of his trial?

Gravity. I just held my pencil up and let go, and sure enough, it fell to the floor.

Given any straight line segment, a circle can be drawn having the segment as radius and one endpoint as center.

There are two for a start. No faith involved.

Gravity is a primitive assumption based on limited observation. As we have explored the universe we have been lead to the more general and fundamental axiom that all matter has gravity. This is observable and repeatable, but only within the limits of our perceptions. Less than a blink of an eye measured in time and further we donít even know what 90 percent the universe is by our own reckoning. So it remains an axiom taken on faith. True so far, so we assume it always will be. Unexplained by any known mechanism.

Straight line ? Circles? The very sentence structure you used show this is a theorem derived from assumptions.

I do honestly wonder if religion didn't inhibit science in one way. To the religious, the answer "because that's the way god wants/made it" is an end in itself.

That all the universities of the time were run by the Roman church is more an indication of its total domination of society rather than its great support of science.

In fact religion inhibited the growth of organic chemistry because carbon based compounds were the compounds of life and that was in the realm of god, not to be messed with by man.

That was until some poor schmuck mixed two inorganic chemicals and got urea. Till then it was thought that organic compounds could only be made by living things.

Yes, sometimes religion has inhibited science, and just as often science has stumbled and tripped over its own feet. Every major advance of science has come over the objections of an entrenched hierarchy. In addition to frauds and incompetent pretenders.

10 base numbers, and algebra are conveniences useful to mathematics, not science.

A better point in your favor would be the invention of zero.

This, probably better than anything else displays your total lack of any knowledge of science whatsoever. Chemisty, physics, astronomy electricity are all totally dependent on mathematics. Some biology and physiology may be possible without it, but even there more and more often statistical analyses and in the extreme, quantum calculations are needed to understand systems being studied.